Combat Manual: Mercenaries Beta fan input thread

[Fear Factory]

Soooooooo.....  why is there no entry for Hansen's Roughriders?

[Alexander Knight]

Soooooooo.....  why is there no entry for Hansen's Roughriders?

Space considerations.  They're listed in a sidebar with several other formations.

[Fear Factory]

Space considerations.  They're listed in a sidebar with several other formations.

I figured they would be worth more than that, though, being an original.  It is what it is.   :(

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Since the CM series is introducing the Succession Wars to Alpha Strike, maybe it should allow Dogfighters in place of Fast Dogfighters as a requirement for Aerospace Superiority Squadrons under the force building rules.  Afterall, Fast Dogfighters that are legal in the SW eras can probably be counted on a single hand that's missing some fingers.

Then again, given how important raw thrust is in abstract combat dogfights, maybe you simply would want 50% interceptors if fast dogfighters aren't available.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Another bit of feedback:

I'm not clear on what role, if any, the MUL is supposed to have under the force building rules in the CM.  Is it meant to work with the faction availability lists or is it an entirely separate system?

For example:
A CRD-5S Crusader is on the MUL as available to Mercs in the Clan Invasion era.  But it's one of many such units that isn't on the list in the CM book.  So am I allowed to use them at all under the CM:Mercs rules?  If I can use one, how many FPs should I spend?

[cavingjan]

As mentioned previously (I think in this thread), the MUL is separate.

[nckestrel]

Another bit of feedback:

I'm not clear on what role, if any, the MUL is supposed to have under the force building rules in the CM.  Is it meant to work with the faction availability lists or is it an entirely separate system?

For example:
A CRD-5S Crusader is on the MUL as available to Mercs in the Clan Invasion era.  But it's one of many such units that isn't on the list in the CM book.  So am I allowed to use them at all under the CM:Mercs rules?  If I can use one, how many FPs should I spend?

The Combat Manuals are a separate system.  The intent of the CMs is to make a more varied faction availability system. The MUL says CRD-5S for Mercs, because many mercs work for Steiner and get 'mechs from them (therefore fulfilling the MUL's minimum multiple units in multiple regiments).  But that doesn't mean the 4th Tau Ceti Rangers should have CRD-5S readily available.

In the Combat Manuals, the CRD-5S is a Steiner 'mech, if you have Steiner as a Common Ally (where they would sell it to you), or a Common Enemy (where you could have salvaged it), then you can pay those FP costs to have a CRD-5S.  Plenty of 'merc units have Steiner as either an Ally or Enemy, so CRD-5S is still fairly common among mercs.  But not among Liao employed mercs.

Also note the MUL covers the Clan Invasion through 3061.  The Combat Manuals only cover the Early Clan Invasion (3053/4).  The Houses are still being much more picky about who they give upgrades to.  Several mercs that had contracts with Steiner/Davion had just broken contract over not getting upgrades before facing the Clans.  So we have to cover both, some mercs have very limited availability to upgraded 'mechs, while some get practically whatever they want.  The Common Ally/Common Enemy lists are how the CMs manage those differences within different mercs.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Thanks for the clarification, nckestrel.

My suggestion with regards to the Faction Point system is to provide some sort of guidance about it should be used when there is no relevant CM format equipment list from which to draw allies/enemies/salvage.  Currently there is no Steiner list for the Early Clan Invasion to identify the example CRD-5S.  (Yes yes it's "obvious" to longtime BattleTech players, but what about non-longtime players?  You can't even point at the "S" as a deliniator.  By that logic, a Tai-sho TSH-7S would be a Steiner mech)

When CM: Steiner eventually comes out, then there'll still be no Kurita list.  and so on. (or whatever the order is going to be)  Assuming the series is successful and you publish a book covering every faction, then there are other timeframes.  What about games set in 3056?  What about the Dark Age?

I realize that's a task that's impossible to do comprehensively.  However if Faction Points are to be tournament appropriate (and I recognize that I may be in error in presuming they ever were meant to be) then there should be something besides personal judgement a tourney judge can point to to justify what unit costs how many FPs when units from not-yet-published CM availability lists are included.  The MUL is an existing resource that's too handy and too readily available to ignore for the purpose of identifying availability for Faction Point costs where no CM availability list is already published.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

If a player’s Force consists of one-half or
more of the listed Force Composition for a Sub-Command, then the Force must match
both the Experience Level (average Skill Rating, see Determine Force Experience Level,
p. 85) and average Size of that Sub-Command, rounding normally, as well as any other
specifications.

That language leaves room for interpretation about what counts as "half" because it is vague about from where one begins measuring.

For example, the first merc sub-command listed is the 1894th Light Horse Regiment of the BSI.  Their size is listed as a mech regiment, a fighter wing, a vehicle regiment, an infantry regiment, and an artillery company.  That's 372 units total.

If a game has a big enough PV budget to bring 72 mechs, are those two battalions worth of mechs required to average medium weight and veteran skill or not?  It's more than half of the mechs, but not more than half of 372 total units.

[JadedFalcon]

If input is still being accepted:

Nitpicky details

Multiple instances: SCA - Force the Initiative should be Forcing the Initiative to be consistent with the Companion.

Pg.86 Aliased edges on Locust.

Pg.86 Contract Types sidebar - Relief Duty and Riot Duty not bolded.

Pg.87 Contract Types (Continued) sidebar - Objective Raid and Covert Operations not bolded. Under Covert
Operations: "This type of mission places undue weight on the command, and generally officers higher wages than other contract types. " Officers should be offers.

Pg.109 - HBK-4SP and HBK-4P Hunchbacks are listed as Brawlers, but listed as Juggernauts on the MUL

Clarification/Consistency
Pg.55 - Marshigama's Legionnaires company composition: Each company is described as following a specific set of three lance formations. If the formations are intended to be limited to these three, then they should appear in the Force Composition box. If not, perhaps the wording should be adjusted, such as "Each company usually posesses a..." or similar.

Playtesting Feedback/Opinion
Last month we played the Plain Determination scenario (pg.43) and it may need another look or further playtesting. Clarification on victory conditions and/or PV could help. Also making the hovercraft arrive in waves instead of all at once would be an improvement, and perhaps change their deployment edges to the attacker's half of the board (and no closer than 15"  to 20" from defender's home edge). My hovercraft showing up in pristine condition near the opponent's table edge on turn 7 shut down the game. PV was 430 Defender versus 600 attacker, using the average skill ratings in the scenario.

Last game my opponent used the 180th Dragoons from Lexington Combat Group (pg.51), and the sprinting rule for the Assault Lances was really cool. Might be worth considering as a Special Command Ability in a future supplement.

[rocqueforte]

Unaffiliated Mechwarriors-
Charles Bear- he was a member of the GDL for over 20 years, joining the unit after Verthandi.  He might of been a member of the Ceti Rangers (per SBs- unknown merc unit, Tau Ceti Rangers or Ceti Hussars??) and the 21st Centauri Lancers but he mainly identified with the GDL. He seems an odd choice for an unaffiliated mechwarrior.

This sprung out at me too. Being an old, old school player, I'd *love* to see Charles Bear replaced with any one of the fine folk from this list:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/MechWarrior_(1989_Video_Game)#Personnel
;)

Of course, it's a sad, sad indictment on how I spent my late teenage years in that not only was I able to remember half a dozen of these names without looking at the Sarna link, I can also still clearly picture the oh-so-cutting edge EGA pictures for these mechwarriors...

[rocqueforte]

Soooooooo.....  why is there no entry for Hansen's Roughriders?

More importantly, why do "The Blazing Aces" get no love?  :D

And if like me, you get this reference 'cos you remember ripping the shrink wrap off your copy of Activision's MechWarrior game, you are o-l-d.  ;)

[Adrian Gideon]

Thank you all for taking the time to help us refine this book.
This thread is now closed.